A document must be produced when it is identified to be introduced as documentary evidence.

Where the document identified to be introduced as documentary evidence is in the opposing party's possession, a party shall move the court to order the opposing party to produce such document.
The motion provided in the preceding paragraph shall specify the following matters:
1. The identification of document requested to be produced;
2. The disputed fact to be proved by such document;
3. The content of such document;
4. The fact that such document is in the opposing party's possession; and
5. The reason why the opposing party has a duty to produce such document.
Where there exists manifest difficulty in specifying the matters provided in the first and the third subparagraphs of the preceding paragraph, the court may order the opposing party to provide necessary assistance.

Where the court considers that the disputed fact is material and that the motion is just, it shall order the opposing party to produce the document by a ruling.

A party has the duty to produce the following documents:
1. Documents to which such party has made reference in the course of the litigation proceeding;
2. Documents which the opposing party may require the delivery or an inspection thereof pursuant to the applicable laws;
3. Documents which are created in the interests of the opposing party;
4. Commercial accounting books;
5. Documents which are created regarding matters relating to the action.
Where the content of a document provided in the fifth subparagraph of the preceding paragraph involves the privacy or business secret of a party or a third person and the resulting disclosure may result in material harm to such party or third person, the party may refuse to produce such document. Notwithstanding, in order to determine whether the party has a justifiable reason to refuse the production of the document, the court, if necessary, may order the party to produce the document and examine it in private.

Where a party disobeys an order to produce documents without giving a justifiable reason, the court may, in its discretion, take as the truth the opposing party's allegation with regard to such document or the fact to be proved by such document.
In the case provided in the preceding paragraph, the parties shall be accorded an opportunity to present their arguments.

Where a document identified to be introduced as documentary evidence is in a third person's possession, a party may move the court either to order such third person to produce such document or to designate a period of time within which the party who intends to introduce it as evidence shall produce such document.
The provisions of the second paragraph and the third paragraph of Article 342 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the motion provided in the preceding paragraph.
A preliminary showing shall be made with regard to the fact that the document is in a third person's possession and the reason why the third person has the duty to produce such document.

Where the court considers that the disputed fact is material and that the motion is just, it may order, by a ruling, the third person to produce the document or to designate a period of time within which the party who intends to introduce it as evidence shall produce such document.
Before making the ruling provided in the preceding paragraph, the court shall accord the third person an opportunity to be heard.

With regard to a third person's duty to produce documents, the provisions of Articles 306 to 310 inclusive, the second to the fifth subparagraphs inclusive of the first paragraph and the second paragraph of Article 344 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Where a third person disobeys an order to produce documents without giving a justifiable reason, the court may by a ruling impose a fine not exceeding NTD 30,000; where necessary, the court may also by a ruling order compulsory measures to be taken.
The provisions of the Code of Compulsory Execution relating to the execution of a claim for the surrender of objects shall apply mutatis mutandis to the execution of the compulsory measures provided in the preceding paragraph.
An interlocutory appeal may be taken from the ruling provided in the first paragraph; the execution of the ruling imposing a fine shall be stayed pending such appeal.

The court may subpoena a document which is in a government agency's custody or in a public officer's possession irrespective of whether such government agency or public officer has the duty to produce such document.
The provision of Article 306 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case provided in the preceding paragraph. Notwithstanding, in order to determine whether the agency or officer has a justifiable reason to refuse the production, the court, if necessary, may order such agency or official to produce the document and examine it in private.

A third person may claim its expenses for producing documents, except in the case provided in the first paragraph of Article 349.
The provisions of the second paragraph to the fourth paragraph inclusive of Article 323 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case provided in the preceding paragraph.

A public document shall be produced in its original copy or in a notarized written copy or photocopy form.
A private document shall be produced in its original copy. Notwithstanding, where only the effect or explanation of such document is disputed, it may be produced in a written copy or photocopy form.
Where the court considers it necessary to serve the document provided in the two preceding paragraphs, it may order the party to provide written copies or photocopies of the document.

The court may order the production of the original copy of a document.
Where the order for production of the original copy is disobeyed or the original copy cannot be produced, the court may determine the evidentiary weight of the written copy or photocopy of the document as produced by free evaluation.

Where the court in which the case is pending makes the commissioned judge or the assigned judge take documentary evidence, it may specify the matters to be indicated in the transcript and the documents to be annexed.

A document, which by formality and tenor may be considered a public document, is presumed to be authentic.
Where there is doubt with regard to the authenticity of a public document, the court may request the government agency or public officer in whose name such document is issued to make a statement.

The court, in its discretion, can determine the authenticity of a foreign public document. Notwithstanding, where the document has been certified by the R.O.C. ambassador/minister envoy/consul or other authorized institution in that country, it shall be presumed to be authentic.

Except in the case where the opposing party does not dispute the authenticity of the document, the party who introduces a private document shall prove its authenticity.

Where a party or his/her agent in bad faith disputes the authenticity of an authentic document, the court may impose a fine not exceeding NTD 30,000 by a ruling.
An interlocutory appeal may be taken from the ruling provided in the preceding paragraph; the execution of such ruling shall be stayed pending such appeal.
If the party or agent provided in the first paragraph admits to the authenticity of the document before the oral argument in the second instance is concluded, the court in which the case is pending may revoke the original ruling in its discretion.

A private document is presumed to be authentic if it is signed by the person in whose name the document is issued or by his/her agent; or is imprinted with the seal or fingerprint of such person or agent; or bears the notarization by the court or a notary.
Where a party states that he/she has no knowledge or memory with regard to whether he/she signed or impressed his/her seal or fingerprint in the document, the court may in its discretion, determine whether such document should be presumed to be authentic.

The authenticity of a document may be proved by comparing the handwriting or the impression of seals.
The court may order the parties or a third person to produce documents which may be used for making the comparison.
The provisions regarding inspection shall apply to any comparison of handwriting or seal impressions.

Where there is no suitable handwriting available for comparison, the court may order the person in whose name the document is issued to write the words designated by the court for purposes of comparison.
Where the person in whose name a document is issued disobeys the order provided in the preceding paragraph without giving a justifiable reason, the provisions of Article 345 or Article 349 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
The words written for purposes of comparison shall be annexed to the transcript; the same applies to other documents which are produced for purposes of comparison and need not be returned.

Where the original copy of a document produced must be returned, a written copy, photocopy, or excerpt copy thereof shall be included in the dossier.
Where the original copy of a document as produced is suspected to be forged or altered, it shall be kept by the court before the conclusion of the action, except where it shall be handed over to other government agencies.

(Repealed.)

The provisions of this Item shall apply mutatis mutandis to non-documentary objects which operate as documents.
Where the content of a document or an object provided in the preceding paragraph is accessible only through technological devices or it is practically difficult to produce its original version, a writing representing its content along with a proof of the content represented as being true to the original will be acceptable.
The court may, if necessary, order an explanation of the document, object, or writing representing the content thereof provided in the two preceding paragraphs.